We performed a comparison between DX Unified Infrastructure Management and ScienceLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"It is easy to implement but requires good planning."
"I recall the initial setup being straightforward."
"It reduced cycles for a lot of quick out-of-the-box functionality. It also allowed us to get away from being stuck in SNMP, VTP V2, based off of agent deployment."
"Scalability and flexibility. The product can grow with your infrastructure so you don't have to install other products. Just add components. It's very simple."
"You can scale it pretty much however way you want to as long as you have the servers to throw at it."
"This solution allows us to have an overview of the infrastructure and identify areas where the performance isn't optimal, or where upgrades could be carried out."
"MultiWAN and Balance service"
"Easy admin functionality. You can quickly do all the admin functionality without reducing cycles."
"It has good monitoring capabilities across cloud environments, data centers, and hybrid environments."
"It is very easy to configure because we are using an agent-less version. You can very quickly implement a collector for monitoring device servers."
"The most valuable features of ScienceLogic are AI and machine learning."
"The power flow is great."
"Best feature of all is detailed monitoring of services, processes, ports and SSL certificates and or web content."
"The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support."
"Science Logic provides distributed and all-in-one concept in monitoring, you can easily customize the features in this product."
"When it comes to features, the power pack is the most valuable."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Reporting capability can be improved especially when it comes to availability."
"They need to continue to advance the filter capabilities, and provide more input fields."
"CA UIM needs some improvement with performance reporting (if we compare it to CA eHealth)."
"The only challenge that I have with this solution is the reporting part. The users are not really comfortable with the kind of reports they are getting. Sometimes, they want to see reports in their own format. Customizing those reports with Jasper is not very easy. It could be because of the knowledge gap. If you have the knowledge of how Jasper can be configured to suit customer requirements in terms of reporting, it is good. There was a time a customer complained about one issue related to Netflow analysis. Broadcom has a separate model for that, but the customer wanted everything bundled together. It could also have IP management so that I am able to see or analyze IPs so that the IPs that are already in use don't get assigned."
"Currently lacks a mobile application which would be helpful."
"There is also room for improvement in the reporting. It is not really good enough, according to our customers. So what we now usually do is use Power BI to get them the kinds of reports they want."
"We would like to see automatic network topology."
"There should be wider coverage of storage infrastructure."
"I would like to see out-of-the-box standard dashboards for common services."
"The product's reporting functionalities have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
"ScienceLogic should provide detailed documents to customer as the current documents are not sufficient."
"It doesn't have the complete application-level topology. It could have service topology and business service monitoring. I would like to see how business service monitoring will function with agent-based installation, and how flexible and business-oriented it is for service modeling and service infrastructure. I have a lot of experience in using business service monitoring, service topology, and service hierarchy functionalities in similar products from BMC and Micro Focus (OpenView), and I want to see how these functionalities will look like in ScienceLogic."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
"ScienceLogic does not have application monitoring. We definitely need something integrated within ScienceLogic to monitor applications so that we don't have to rely on monitoring tools to monitor other applications. At least the ones that are market leaders, such as SAP, Oracle, and others."
"Admins do not have direct access to the reporting."
More DX Unified Infrastructure Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
DX Unified Infrastructure Management is ranked 37th in Network Monitoring Software with 120 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 14th in Network Monitoring Software with 42 reviews. DX Unified Infrastructure Management is rated 8.2, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of DX Unified Infrastructure Management writes "Easy to set up, simple to use, and offers great technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". DX Unified Infrastructure Management is most compared with DX SaaS, DX Spectrum, SCOM, ManageEngine OpManager and SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and ServiceNow Discovery. See our DX Unified Infrastructure Management vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors, and best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.